DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status Of Claims
This Office Action is in response to an amendment received 3/4/2024 in which Applicant lists claims 19-22 as being cancelled, claims 1-18 as being original, and claims 23-29 as being new. It is interpreted by the examiner that claims 1-18, 23-29 are pending.
If applicant is aware of any relevant prior art, or other co-pending application not already of record, they are reminded of their duty under 37 CFR 1.56 to disclose the same.
Regarding the numbering and/or order of dependent claims 7-15, Applicant is reminded that:
“A claim which depends from a dependent claim should not be separated by any claim which does not also depend from said dependent claim. It should be kept in mind that a dependent claim may refer to any preceding independent claim. In general, applicant's sequence will not be changed.” See MPEP § 608.01(n).
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement(s) (IDS) filed on 5/13/2024 was considered.
Other Related Art
This prior art, made of record, but not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure since the following references have similar structure and/or use similar optical elements to what is claimed and/or disclosed in the instant application:
Hunter, US 9,696,008 B2, discloses a very similar reflecting optic for a vehicle assembly including multiple doubly concave reflectors having the same or different geometries, more less than 3 LEDs on circuit boards, and wherein the reflectors may have a stacked orientation (abstract, figs. 1-6);
Perlin, US 2021/0247048 A1, discloses a similar reflecting optic including multiple doubly concave reflectors and light sources (abstract, figs. 1A-5B);
Mayer, US 2005/0185409 A1, discloses a similar reflecting optic including multiple doubly concave reflectors and light sources (title, abstract, figs. 1-3);
Lisowski, US 2004/0145910 A1, discloses a similar reflecting optic including multiple doubly concave reflectors and light sources (abstract, figs. 1-5, para. [0017]);
Futami et al., US 6,109,772, discloses a similar reflecting optic including multiple doubly concave reflectors and a light source (abstract, fig. 4);
Madril, US 2017/0114980 A1, discloses a reflecting optic including multiple doubly concave reflectors, including a tapered transitional reflecting surface, and a light source (abstract, figs. 2, 4-7, para. [0046]); and
Sokolov et al., US 2006/0083005 A1, discloses a reflecting optic including multiple concave reflectors, including a tapered transitional reflecting surface, and a light source(s) (abstract, figs. 10-12, 15).
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 17, 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mochizuki, WO 2021/039827 A1 (hereafter Mochizuki; It is noted that any references below to the specification of Mochizuki are with respect to the numbered pages of the English machine translation provided herewith).
Regarding claim 1, Mochizuki discloses a reflecting optic assembly for use on a vehicle (see at least the abstract, element 1) comprising:
a housing having a housing aperture (see at least elements 40, 41 and 42, page 2);
one or more light sources positioned inside the housing (see at least the abstract, elements 51, 52L and 52R) and coupled with a circuit board to selectively emit light (see at least element 50, page 2); and
a reflector having a front wall, a rear wall, a first side wall, and a second side wall (see at least figures 1-3, reflector 20, wherein a bottom surface closest to the front of the vehicle may be considered the front wall, a top surface abutting the circuit board 50 may be considered the rear wall, and the leftmost and rightmost surfaces may be considered the first and second side walls), where the reflector is mounted in the housing for collecting and distributing the emitted light from the one or more light sources through the housing aperture into an oblong shaped light spot pattern (see at least elements 20 and 40, and abstract, figure 5, elements PH, PHA2, page 3), the reflector comprising:
a doubly concave first side reflecting surface having a first length and a first width, wherein the doubly concave first side reflecting surface is concave as it extends along both the first length and the first width (see at least element 22L and/or 31L1 and 31L2, pages 2, 4 and 8 wherein the left reflecting surface(s) are parabolic);
a doubly concave second side reflecting surface having a second length and a second width, wherein the doubly concave second side reflecting surface is concave as it extends along both the second length and the second width (see at least element 22R and/or 31R1 and 31R2, pages 2, 3 and 8 wherein the right reflecting surface(s) are parabolic); and
a transitional center reflecting surface extending between the doubly concave first side reflecting surface and the doubly concave second side reflecting surface (see at least element 21, pages 2, 3 and 8 wherein the center reflecting surface(s) are parabolic).
The recitation “for use on a vehicle” has not been given significant patentable weight under MPEP Chapter 2111.02 [R-3] – Effect of Preamble because the recitation occurs in the preamble where it merely recites the intended use of a structure and fails to structurally limit the body of the claim.
MPEP 2112.02 (II) states that “statements in the preamble reciting the purpose of intended use of the claimed invention must be evaluated to determine whether the recited purpose or intended use results in a structural difference (or, in the case of process claims, manipulative difference) between the claimed invention and the prior art. If so, then the recitation serves to limit the claims.” Additionally, In re Sinex, 309 F.2d 488, 492, 135 USPQ 302, 305 (CCPA 1962), is a case where the “statement of intended use in an apparatus claim did not distinguish over the prior art apparatus”.
In the instant case, the listed claims are made with regard to an apparatus whose intended use does not distinguish it from the prior art apparatus, as the use of the reflecting optic assembly, as claimed, cannot be considered a structural or manipulative difference from reflecting optic assemblies in the prior art without evidence present in the disclosure and set forth in the claims as to how this intended use of the reflecting optic assembly renders it structurally or manipulatively different from the prior art.
Regarding claim 17, Mochizuki discloses the limitations of claim 1, and further comprising the center reflecting surface having a third width and a third length, wherein the center reflecting surface is concave as it extends along the third width and concave as it extends along the third length (see at least element 21, pages 2, 3 and 8 wherein the center reflecting surface(s) are parabolic).
Regarding claim 23, Mochizuki discloses the limitations of claim 1, and wherein the center reflecting surface, the doubly concave first side reflecting surface, and the doubly concave second side reflecting surface are integrally formed as a continuous surface extending across the top of the reflector and the emitted light from the one or more light sources is directly received by and reflected off of each of the center reflecting surface, the doubly concave first side reflecting surface, and the doubly concave second side reflecting surface (see at least elements 21, 22L, 22R, 31L1, 31L2, 31R1 and 31R2, 51, 52L, 52R, pages 2-3).
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 17-18, 23-25, 28-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harrington, Jr, U.S. Patent Number 9,327,640 B2 (hereafter Harrington) in view of Mochizuki, WO 2021/039827 A1 (hereafter Mochizuki; It is noted that any references below to the specification of Mochizuki are with respect to the numbered pages of the English machine translation provided herewith).
Regarding claim 1, Harrington discloses a reflecting optic assembly for use on a vehicle (see at least the abstract) comprising:
a housing having a housing aperture (see at least element 16, column 5, lines 36-64);
one or more light sources positioned inside the housing (see at least element 34, column 6, lines 22-47); and
a reflector having a front wall, a rear wall, a first side wall, and a second side wall (see at least figure 2, reflector 38, wherein a bottom surface closest to the corrugations 30 may be considered the rear wall, a top surface may be considered the front wall, and the leftmost and rightmost surfaces may be considered the first and second side walls), where the reflector is mounted in the housing for collecting and distributing the emitted light from the one or more light sources through the housing aperture into an oblong shaped light spot pattern (see at least figure 1 wherein the reflector is mounted in the housing and figures 3-5 wherein the light is distributed into an oblong shaped light spot pattern; additionally col. 7, lines 9-30, col. 7, line 56 through col. 8, line 3, col. 8, lines 33-47), the reflector comprising:
a doubly concave first side reflecting surface having a first length and a first width, wherein the doubly concave first side reflecting surface is concave as it extends along both the first length and the first width (see at least element 44 and/or 48, col. 7, line 56 through col. 8, line 3 wherein the left reflecting surface(s) are parabolic);
a doubly concave second side reflecting surface having a second length and a second width, wherein the doubly concave second side reflecting surface is concave as it extends along both the second length and the second width (see at least element 46 and/or 50, col. 8, lines 33-47 wherein the right reflecting surface(s) are parabolic); and
a transitional center reflecting surface extending between the doubly concave first side reflecting surface and the doubly concave second side reflecting surface (see at least element 42, col. 7, lines 9-30 wherein the center reflecting surface is parabolic).
Harrington does not specifically disclose that the one or more light sources are coupled with a circuit board to selectively emit light.
However, Mochizuki is related to Harrington as both reflecting optic assemblies are drawn to lamps for use on vehicles (see at least the abstract of Harrington and Mochizuki), and wherein Mochizuki discloses that it is well-known in the optical arts to dispose light sources such that they are coupled with a circuit board to selectively emit light (see at least elements 50, 51, 52L, 52R, pages 2-3 of Mochizuki).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the reflecting optic assembly of Harrington to include the teachings of Mochizuki so that the one or more light sources are coupled with a circuit board to selectively emit light, for the purpose of using well-known structure to provide power and control to the one or more light sources.
The recitation “for use on a vehicle” has not been given significant patentable weight under MPEP Chapter 2111.02 [R-3] – Effect of Preamble because the recitation occurs in the preamble where it merely recites the intended use of a structure and fails to structurally limit the body of the claim.
MPEP 2112.02 (II) states that “statements in the preamble reciting the purpose of intended use of the claimed invention must be evaluated to determine whether the recited purpose or intended use results in a structural difference (or, in the case of process claims, manipulative difference) between the claimed invention and the prior art. If so, then the recitation serves to limit the claims.” Additionally, In re Sinex, 309 F.2d 488, 492, 135 USPQ 302, 305 (CCPA 1962), is a case where the “statement of intended use in an apparatus claim did not distinguish over the prior art apparatus”.
In the instant case, the listed claims are made with regard to an apparatus whose intended use does not distinguish it from the prior art apparatus, as the use of the reflecting optic assembly, as claimed, cannot be considered a structural or manipulative difference from reflecting optic assemblies in the prior art without evidence present in the disclosure and set forth in the claims as to how this intended use of the reflecting optic assembly renders it structurally or manipulatively different from the prior art.
Regarding claim 17, Harrington in view of Mochizuki discloses the limitations of claim 1, and further comprising the center reflecting surface having a third width and a third length, wherein the center reflecting surface is concave as it extends along the third width and concave as it extends along the third length (see at least element 42, col. 7, lines 9-30 of Harrington wherein the center reflecting surface is parabolic).
Regarding claim 18, Harrington in view of Mochizuki discloses the limitations of claim 1, and wherein the one or more light sources comprises a single light source (see at least element 34 of Harrington wherein the single LED array 34 is interpreted as “a single light source” since the “single light source” and “one or more light sources” have not been defined or limited by the claim).
Regarding claim 23, Harrington in view of Mochizuki discloses the limitations of claim 1, and wherein the center reflecting surface, the doubly concave first side reflecting surface, and the doubly concave second side reflecting surface are integrally formed as a continuous surface extending across the top of the reflector and the emitted light from the one or more light sources is directly received by and reflected off of each of the center reflecting surface, the doubly concave first side reflecting surface, and the doubly concave second side reflecting surface.
Regarding claim 24, Harrington in view of Mochizuki discloses the limitations of claim 1, and wherein the center reflecting surface, the doubly concave first side reflecting surface, and the doubly concave second side reflecting surface, are situated along the reflector such that the emitted light from the one or more light sources is refocused so as to project from distinct respective virtual focal points (see at least figure 5 of Harrington wherein the curved reflectors may converge light to multiple focus points, and col. 7, line 56 through col. 8, line 3, and col. 9, line 10 through col. 10, line 38).
Regarding claim 25, Harrington discloses a reflecting optic assembly for use on a vehicle (see at least the abstract) comprising:
a housing having a housing aperture (see at least element 16, column 5, lines 36-64);
a single light source secured in the housing (see at least element 34, column 6, lines 22-47); and
a reflector having a front wall, a rear wall, a first side wall, and a second side wall (see at least figure 2, reflector 38, wherein a bottom surface closest to the corrugations 30 may be considered the rear wall, a top surface may be considered the front wall, and the leftmost and rightmost surfaces may be considered the first and second side walls), where the reflector is mounted in the housing for collecting and distributing the emitted light from the single light source through the housing aperture (see at least figure 1 wherein the reflector is mounted in the housing and figures 3-5 wherein the light is distributed into an oblong shaped light spot pattern; additionally col. 7, lines 9-30, col. 7, line 56 through col. 8, line 3, col. 8, lines 33-47), the reflector comprising:
a doubly concave first side reflecting surface having a first length and a first width, wherein the doubly concave first side reflecting surface is concave as it extends along both the first length and the first width (see at least element 44 and/or 48, col. 7, line 56 through col. 8, line 3 wherein the left reflecting surface(s) are parabolic);
a doubly concave second side reflecting surface having a second length and a second width, wherein the doubly concave second side reflecting surface is concave as it extends along both the second length and the second width (see at least element 46 and/or 50, col. 8, lines 33-47 wherein the right reflecting surface(s) are parabolic); and
a transitional center reflecting surface extending between the doubly concave first side reflecting surface and the doubly concave second side reflecting surface (see at least element 42, col. 7, lines 9-30 wherein the center reflecting surface is parabolic).
Harrington does not specifically disclose a circuit board positioned inside the housing and a single light source secured to the circuit board and energizable to selectively provide emitted light.
However, Mochizuki is related to Harrington as both reflecting optic assemblies are drawn to lamps for use on vehicles (see at least the abstract of Harrington and Mochizuki), and wherein Mochizuki discloses that it is well-known in the optical arts to dispose light sources such that they are coupled with a circuit board to selectively energize and selectively emit light (see at least elements 50, 51, 52L, 52R, pages 2-3 of Mochizuki).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the reflecting optic assembly of Harrington to include the teachings of Mochizuki so that a circuit board is positioned inside the housing and a single light source secured to the circuit board and energizable to selectively provide emitted light, for the purpose of using well-known structure to selectively power and selectively control the single light sources.
The recitation “for use on a vehicle” has not been given significant patentable weight under MPEP Chapter 2111.02 [R-3] – Effect of Preamble because the recitation occurs in the preamble where it merely recites the intended use of a structure and fails to structurally limit the body of the claim.
MPEP 2112.02 (II) states that “statements in the preamble reciting the purpose of intended use of the claimed invention must be evaluated to determine whether the recited purpose or intended use results in a structural difference (or, in the case of process claims, manipulative difference) between the claimed invention and the prior art. If so, then the recitation serves to limit the claims.” Additionally, In re Sinex, 309 F.2d 488, 492, 135 USPQ 302, 305 (CCPA 1962), is a case where the “statement of intended use in an apparatus claim did not distinguish over the prior art apparatus”.
In the instant case, the listed claims are made with regard to an apparatus whose intended use does not distinguish it from the prior art apparatus, as the use of the reflecting optic assembly, as claimed, cannot be considered a structural or manipulative difference from reflecting optic assemblies in the prior art without evidence present in the disclosure and set forth in the claims as to how this intended use of the reflecting optic assembly renders it structurally or manipulatively different from the prior art.
Regarding claim 28, Harrington in view of Mochizuki discloses the limitations of claim 25, and further comprising the center reflecting surface having a third width and a third length, wherein the center reflecting surface is concave as it extends along the third width and concave as it extends along the third length (see at least element 42, col. 7, lines 9-30 wherein the center reflecting surface is parabolic).
Regarding claim 29, Harrington discloses a reflecting optic assembly for use on a vehicle (see at least the abstract) comprising:
a housing having a housing aperture (see at least element 16, column 5, lines 36-64);
a single light source secured in the housing (see at least element 34, column 6, lines 22-47); and
a reflector having a front wall, a rear wall, a first side wall, and a second side wall (see at least figure 2, reflector 38, wherein a bottom surface closest to the corrugations 30 may be considered the rear wall, a top surface may be considered the front wall, and the leftmost and rightmost surfaces may be considered the first and second side walls), where the reflector is mounted in the housing for collecting and distributing the emitted light from the single light source through the housing aperture (see at least figure 1 wherein the reflector is mounted in the housing and figures 3-5 wherein the light is distributed into an oblong shaped light spot pattern; additionally col. 7, lines 9-30, col. 7, line 56 through col. 8, line 3, col. 8, lines 33-47), the reflector comprising:
a doubly concave first side reflecting surface having a first length and a first width, wherein the doubly concave first side reflecting surface is concave as it extends along both the first length and the first width (see at least element 44 and/or 48, col. 7, line 56 through col. 8, line 3 wherein the left reflecting surface(s) are parabolic);
a doubly concave second side reflecting surface having a second length and a second width, wherein the doubly concave second side reflecting surface is concave as it extends along both the second length and the second width (see at least element 46 and/or 50, col. 8, lines 33-47 wherein the right reflecting surface(s) are parabolic); and
a transitional center reflecting surface extending between the doubly concave first side reflecting surface and the doubly concave second side reflecting surface, wherein the center reflecting surface, the doubly concave first side reflecting surface, and the doubly concave second side reflecting surface are integrally formed as a continuous surface extending across the top of the reflector and the emitted light from the single light source is directly received by and reflected off of each of the center reflecting surface, the doubly concave first side reflecting surface, and the doubly concave second side reflecting surface (see at least element 42 integrally formed with 48, 44, 46 and 50, col. 6, lines 48-65).
Harrington does not specifically disclose a circuit board positioned inside the housing and a single light source secured to the circuit board and energizable to selectively provide emitted light.
However, Mochizuki is related to Harrington as both reflecting optic assemblies are drawn to lamps for use on vehicles (see at least the abstract of Harrington and Mochizuki), and wherein Mochizuki discloses that it is well-known in the optical arts to dispose light sources such that they are coupled with a circuit board to selectively energize and selectively emit light (see at least elements 50, 51, 52L, 52R, pages 2-3 of Mochizuki).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the reflecting optic assembly of Harrington to include the teachings of Mochizuki so that a circuit board is positioned inside the housing and a single light source secured to the circuit board and energizable to selectively provide emitted light, for the purpose of using well-known structure to selectively power and selectively control the single light sources.
The recitation “for use on a vehicle” has not been given significant patentable weight under MPEP Chapter 2111.02 [R-3] – Effect of Preamble because the recitation occurs in the preamble where it merely recites the intended use of a structure and fails to structurally limit the body of the claim.
MPEP 2112.02 (II) states that “statements in the preamble reciting the purpose of intended use of the claimed invention must be evaluated to determine whether the recited purpose or intended use results in a structural difference (or, in the case of process claims, manipulative difference) between the claimed invention and the prior art. If so, then the recitation serves to limit the claims.” Additionally, In re Sinex, 309 F.2d 488, 492, 135 USPQ 302, 305 (CCPA 1962), is a case where the “statement of intended use in an apparatus claim did not distinguish over the prior art apparatus”.
In the instant case, the listed claims are made with regard to an apparatus whose intended use does not distinguish it from the prior art apparatus, as the use of the reflecting optic assembly, as claimed, cannot be considered a structural or manipulative difference from reflecting optic assemblies in the prior art without evidence present in the disclosure and set forth in the claims as to how this intended use of the reflecting optic assembly renders it structurally or manipulatively different from the prior art.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harrington, Jr, U.S. Patent Number 9,327,640 B2 (hereafter Harrington) in view of Mochizuki, WO 2021/039827 A1 (hereafter Mochizuki; It is noted that any references below to the specification of Mochizuki are with respect to the numbered pages of the English machine translation provided herewith) as applied to claim 25 above, and further in view of Ikegami, U.S. Patent Number 6,092,918 (hereafter Ikegami).
Regarding claim 26, Harrington in view of Mochizuki does not appear to specifically disclose that the center reflecting surface tapers in width as it extends from the front wall towards the rear wall of the reflector.
However, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shape, size and/or dimensions of any of the reflecting surfaces, such as the center reflecting surface to achieve desired beam reflection characteristics, since it has been held that a mere change in shape of an element is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art when the change in shape is not significant to the function of the combination; and/or since such a modification would involve only a mere change in size of a component which is generally considered as being within the ordinary skill in the art; and/or since it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimension would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device; and/or since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Therefore, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to select the optimum and workable size, shape, and/or dimensions for the center reflecting surface so that it tapers in width as it extends from the front wall towards the rear wall of the reflector, to make it suitable for an intended purpose such that desired beam reflection characteristics are achieved. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976). In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235.
Additionally, Ikegami is related to Harrington as both reflecting optic assemblies are drawn to lamps for use on vehicles (see at least the abstract of Ikegami and Mochizuki), and wherein Ikegami discloses an integrally formed reflecting optic assembly (see at least element 16 and col. 3, lines 20-59 of Ikegami) including first and second doubly concave reflecting surfaces having different designed focal points (see at least elements 16A/18A and 16B/18B, col. 1, line 64 through col. 2, line 8, and col. 3, lines 20-67 of Ikegami), and including a center reflecting surface which tapers in width (see at least element 18b, col. 4, lines 1-17 and col. 4, lines 53-64 of Ikegami).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the reflecting optic assembly of Harrington in view of Mochizuki to include the teachings of Ikegami so that the center reflecting surface tapers in width as it extends from the front wall towards the rear wall of the reflector, for the purpose of giving the various reflective surfaces of the reflecting optic assembly a desired size and shape, and to control the beam reflection characteristics of the various reflective surfaces of the reflecting optic assembly to achieve a desired beam pattern for a particular purpose while having a reasonable expectation for success.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-16 and 27 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 2 and 27 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable over the cited art of record, if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, for at least the reason that the prior art and cited art of record fails to teach or reasonably suggest a reflecting optic assembly further comprising the center reflecting surface having a third width and a third length, wherein the center reflecting surface is convex as it extends along the third width and concave as it extends along the third length, as generally set forth in claim 1 or 25, the device including the totality of the particular limitations recited in claim 1 or 25 from which claims 2 or 27 depends.
Claims 3-16 depend from claim 2 and therefore are objected to for containing at least the same allowable subject matter of claim 2.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEREK S. CHAPEL whose telephone number is (571)272-8042. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30am-6pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Stephone B. Allen can be reached at 571-272-2434. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Derek S. Chapel/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 3/25/2026
Derek S. CHAPEL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights